It happens to us all in the end. Apparently it happened in Gra-Gra's end a bit more often than most. In other news, I want to marry Barnaby Joyce. OK, I know he ain't pretty and I know he's already married. I even know that he's a he. But he's shown already that he's going to go OK. Not only has he had a go at the 'born to rule' mentality of urban Liberals, but he's also come up with a plan that will give me something without giving you anything. At last I'll get to be part of a privileged elite. Or I would if the plan had any chance at all of getting up. Of course, it begs the question "If it's good for the bush, why not do it everywhere else, too." Seriously. This multi-tiered taxation system is bullshit. All the same arguments apply to income tax that applied to sales tax. Now we've got the GST, why don't we do something about income tax? Like exempt me from it.? 'Cause it's my idea.
This is a Chapparal. Chapparal sounds a bit like Schappelle, particularly if you don't speak English. Ms. Corby is due to have her verdict delivered on Friday. To be honest with you, I don't give a rat's backside what happens to her. I know your supposed to get all het up when an Aussie gets into trouble overseas, but this particular Aussie has enough hettin' up going on without me adding my het to the fire. For the first three decades of her detention I was fairly well convinced that she was innocent. Not because of her supposedly telegenic looks - I think that she's got a head on her like a robber's dog. Not because of her allegedly large breasts - I haven't been paying enough attention to the case to have seen her in clothing which would reveal the breed of her chest puppies (perky little fox-terriers; big, heavy rottweilers or sad, droopy beagles - not that I'm a misogynist or anything [not that there's anything wrong with that]) . Not even because she cries on camera a lot - crying women generate only two reactions in me; either I am confused and uncomfortable, or I am annoyed. The reason I thought that she is innocent is simple: it was a stupid business decision. Bali was already fairly well supplied with cheap dope, importing more is dumb. I've heard the argument about improving the Indo genetics, but all you need for that is seeds. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Today, however, I heard a summary of the evidence against her. She done it yo.
People have differing opinions of football (I'm talking about aussie rules here, all other codes have glaring deficiencies), for some people it is a complete waste of time. Some people actually find it offensive. Others think that the world was created as a stage for football to be played on (I know that sentence is structurally unsound, but I don't care, I don't do grammar). The majority are somewhere in between. In the days of my youth (when the sun was always shining and the magic lantern show was only a farthing) I was something of a football fanatic. I lived and breathed football. I was in training eleven months of the year. I worked harder at football than I have worked at anything before or since. I wasn't very good, it took me until my twenties to realise this. I made rep teams regularly, mainly because I was fitter (and smarter) than most bush footballers, but I was never going to get any further. I wasn't upset when it finally dawned on me that I was doomed to the bush leagues, I had fun while it lasted. I tried coaching but I couldn't understand that most people just didn't want to work as hard as I did; foolish people, enjoying themselves. Likewise people have differing reasons for supporting their chosen clubs. Some are born into it, either through location or through belonging to a dynasty of, say Collingwood supporters. Some people are followers of success (witness the explosion of Essendon barrackers in the Sheedy years), still others have their club chosen for them. My father, f'rinstance, grew up in a bush town in the thirties. His family shifted to the northern suburbs of Melbourne in the late thirties. At school he was asked who he followed in the VFL. He'd never heard of the VFL. They told him to follow Geelong as a joke. He's been following them ever since. Another bloke I know, a ten-pound-tourist, was thrown to the ground on his first day of school. His attacker knelt on his chest, grabbed him by the ears and, as he belted his head into the ground, chanted "Barrack for The Bloods, barrack for The Bloods!" He's followed the Swans for thirty odd years now. As for myself, in my childhood I made the decision to follow Essendon. I could tell you that this was because our local club played in the Essendon and District Football League, but that would be a lie. I was just copying my older brother, which I did in everything. This habit of mine embarrassed my brother so, in my first year of school, when the footy season started he banned me from supporting Essendon. Essendon were playing Carlton that week, so I decided to follow Carlton out of spite. Carlton beat them, then went on to win the premiership. Yay us. I only found out when I was nine years old that I was born in Carlton. So, for thirty six years I've been following Carlton. There won't be a thirty seventh. This weekend Carlton plays it's last game at Princes Park, after playing there since before the VFL was formed. I have been steadily losing interest in the VFL/AFL ever since the eighties when South Melbourne became The Swans. This continued when the push to get rid of Fitzroy was on, ditto Footscray (at least they survived). I think a national competition is a good idea, I just don't like the way they have done it. I don't understand why we have to sacrifice tradition in order to expand. lets face it, how many Melbourne players were born in the CBD, how many Hawks come from within spitting distance of Glenferrie road. Without any ties to a given area through its personnel, the only way of differing between clubs is the location of their home grounds. Without a base in their nominal homeland a club becomes generic. It is becomes a choice between different colour Holdens; they're all Holdens. I had more to say, but I've got to go to work.
This could turn out to be long-winded and rambling, so I'll summarise it here: Artists are parasites; pretentious, self serving fuckwits. Here endeth the summary.
I don't like artists. Which is to say, I don't like anybody who describes themself as an artist, like it's some sort of badge of merit. People who think that making pictures or sculptures, or getting about on stage pretending to be someone else somehow makes them into superior beings beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. When I am in a position to do so, I am a fairly regular gallery visitor, a less regular theatergoer and a very rare attender of (classical) concerts. I have never attended an opera and have no intention of doing so in the future - why anybody would actually pay to go and listen to somebody be in agony in a foreign language is beyond me. At galleries I am ignored, at theatres and concerts I am treated as if I am retarded. Why? Because I dress for these occasions pretty much the same way as if I were going to the pub to see a band. I don't do Art-speak. I don't have a clique or coterie of admirers. Worst of all - I go there to be entertained. I don't want to get cramp in the frontal lobe trying to decipher some sort of obscure message hidden in the subtext of a stilted script. If I don't understand the imagery of having 128 bricks all stacked neatly on the floor* then the fault lies with you, not me. I am, at least according to four separate IQ tests conducted during my schooldays, a genius. Officially. Therefore if I don't 'get it' it's your fault. Even if I did 'get it', so what? It's still 128 bricks. How is that 'art'? I think the rot set in when art ceased to be self-funding (although that wouldn't explain Ken Done or Bryce Courtenay). When painters, writers etc., had to actually provide something that somebody would pay for it provided a stimulus to excellence. These days artists aspire to come up with an idea for something new to put on an arts grant application. On a different front; why is it that in popular music cover bands are nearly at the bottom of the heap, but in 'classical' music, my tax dollars are going to subsidise the equivalent of cover bands so that some bunch of poonces from South Yarra and Double Bay (all with seven figure incomes) can go and whinge about welfare cheats during the intermission? And the next time I'm in a conversation with anybody in these industries and they start crapping on in any way about their 'art' I'm going to kick them in the nuts. If they are female, I'll pour cashews down their knickers, then I'll kick'em in the nuts. Fuck I hate artists. When I was eight years old my brother and I went to stay at my Aunt Em's house for a week. Em's (late) husband was a fairly big time barrister who had represented a few arts-types and so my Aunt knew a few of them. She was invited to a dinner party by one of them which took place during our visit so she brought us along. A few weeks earlier some dickhead (which may have been the host of the party, I don't actually know) had dumped a dead cow at the front of the National Gallery in Melbourne to protest against meat eating. The dinner party was getting close to the eating dinner stage of the party when the host announced that there would be chicken available for those that want it. I imagine this caused quite a bit of discussion, but I don't remember any. A little while later some of the host's lackeys brought out about a dozen (live) chooks in a long wire cage which they laid in the centre of the table. The host announced that anybody who wanted chicken for dinner should select which one they wanted and then kill it. He probably had a smirk on his face. It was probably wiped off when, after a brief discussion, my brother picked out the chook we had selected, holding it by the body. I grabbed the head. He twisted one way, I twisted the other. My Aunt still thinks it was the funniest thing she has ever seen. We didn't stay for dessert. *Actual exhibit in (I think) the Tate Gallery.
So I've read (or at least had a glance through) the first three editions of Investigate magazine. Not a bad read at all, particularly if, like me, you like to lay down on the couch when you read. Because then you can lay down on your left side to balance out the world view you are being given. There is a column in each edition written by a chappy named Ian Wishart, Ian Wishart is full of shit. In the first edition he takes aim at The Da Vinci Code. Fair enough. I've never read the book and I'm not interested in doing so. However in putting shit on the book, Wishart resorts to statements which are disingenuous and misleading to the point of dishonesty.F'rinstance, he makes the point that Dr> John A.T. Robinson doesn't believe the 'old' view that the Gospels were written 'up to' a hundred years after Jesus died. He fails to mention that the 'old' view is still the opinion most popularly held by scholars. Father Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction To The New Testament gives the dates of authorship for the Gospels as: Matthew: c. 70 - 100, although some conservatives put a pre- 70 date forward Mark: c. 68 - 73 Luke:c. 80 - 90 John: c. 90 -110 (These dates are not Browns but come from C.K. Barrett. Most scholars believe that John was written in stages, with many arguing for multiple authors. Somewhat different to Wishart. Wishart would also have you believe, as a matter of undisputed fact, that non-canonical Gospels (note lack of parentheses surrounding that phrase) didn't appear until at least halfway through the second century A.D., which is a minority opinion, even amongst fundies. Some scholars put a cautious date on Thomas, for example, in the middle of the first century, before the Synoptic Gospels. To his own downfall, Wishart wants you to pay attention to the detail in the big four. Details surrounding the crucifixion perhaps Mr. Wishart? You know, the crucifixion which you believe proves the Divinity of the christ? The central plank of the Christian platform? They don't even agree on His final words - Matthew and Mark: My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? Luke: Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. John: It is finished. Not all that reliable as witnesses, are they? Johnny Cochrane wouldn't even bother cross-examining. Wishart would further have you believe that Gnosticism is/was a unified religion, rather than a collection of fairly similar sects, which is what every scholar I've read thinks. He would also have you believe that the bible is a mammal, born fully formed and complete, without any editorial input from anyone, which is bullshit. Even today there isn't a universal bible. Some printers put books called Apocrypha between the Testaments, some don't. At one stage these books were compulsory insertions, but have fallen out of favour in the last couple of hundred years. I gotta go to work, I'll sling more shit at Wishart later. In the meantime, you should also read the column by Ann Coulter, a somewhat shrewish looking woman of modest talent (going on her three columns so far) sometimes known as the darling of the right. Don't know why.
Went to the pub on Friday night. There was an old feller there who had run out of petrol. Actually, he wasn't that old - only about 60. He had Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia. He didn't know where he lived or the phone number of anybody who could help him out. With his permission, the publican went through his wallet to find out his address or a contact phone number. Turns out that he lived on one of the opal fields outside Lightning Ridge. There was a contact number in there, too, so after a quick call to make sure that there was going to be someone there to look a fter him, one of the blokes in the pub volunteered to drive him home. There was no money in his wallet - apparently "The bloke" took it. Nobody knows who "The bloke" is. For no apparent reason, here's some photos. The first one is an 8950 Magnum tractor with the sidebuster attached.
This is what a sidebuster does, busts the side out of the hills.
Yesterday kiddies, something disturbing happened. The English public re-elected rabid war-dog and dodgy used car salesman type Tony Blair for a 'historic' third term. I don't know why it's historic, must be the first time Labour's got three in a row. Be that as it may, this shows a continuance of a very unsettling trend. On Saturday October 9, 2004, Australians re-elected rabid war-dog and eyebrow cultivator John Howard. On the first Tuesday in November 2004 the U.S. voters completely ignored the Melbourne Cup (philistines) and re-elected rabid war-dog and cover model for Inbreeder's Monthly George W. Bush. I think you can see where I'm going with this, but I'll spell it out anyway - the good burghers of Eng-ger-lund and the You Ess get to take time off work to vote whereas we have to cut into our drinking time quality time with the fambly on the week-end to go and make our mark. This is an outrage. When are we going to be able to get pissed bond with our kids without all these constant trivial interruptions? Will no-one think of the children?
OK, so now I'm going to go all Terry McCrann on you. Seems like the Trade Deficit has hit the second highest level ever. The record level also came under the stewardship of Costello (My PM of choice etc.) and Howard. It is the 41st deficit in a row, which prompts three questions: 1> Who cares, really? 2. Given 1, why is the media not howling the masses into the same uncomprehending frenzy that would be compulsory if Paul the Walking Corpse was still PM and 3. How soon are we going to be able to tell what percentage of the recent economic good times are down to Peter and what percentage came as carryover prizes from the dirty commie, pinko, leftie socialist bastards that precede him? The Hun which is like, never sensationalist, ever, has even uttered the magic BR phrase. Then again, The Hun sucks.
So it's official - I am the greatest grower of cotton in the history of western civilisation and therefore the world, 'cos them slanty eyed asian types never did nuthin' good anyway. CSD had a variety trial of a few experimental cotton varieties alongside a few old favourites. This involved a lot of farms in most of the cottongrowing districts in Australia. There were four farms in the Condamine-Balonne catchment area, one of which was us. We kicked arse. There's a little place next door, a hobby farm really, you might have heard of it; it's called Cubbie Station. They grew 28,000 acres of cotton this year. Not as well as I did, but. They were involved in the variety trial, too and their best yield was 4.02 bales per acre ( which is about 10 bales per hectare for those of you who only speak metric). Our worst was 4.05 bales per acre. Some bloke up near St. George managed to get 4.27 bales an acre (10 point a fair bit bales a hectare) but we got 4.53 bales an acre, ( about 11 point a little bit bales a hectare) more than anybody in the whole wide world! Well, the CSD variety trial, anyway. I prepped the ground, I planted it, I cultivated it, I sprayed it, I irrigated it, I was even smart enough not to have to pick it. (Picking sucks at the best of times, but picking variety trials sucks sixteen different ways). I am a God.
OK kids, are you ready for some in-depth analysis of world events? Some perceptive, well-informed, well-thought out commentary on the state of play in local, national and international politics? Boy, are you in the wrong place. All I've got is ill-informed, poorly thought out ranting. Probably self-contradictory too. I'll see what I can come up with. Firstly, can Peter Costello seriously be that slow a learner? He must be the last person in Australia to realise that John's promises aren't worth the paper his advisers wrote them on. Howard, however, remains as Australia's most capable politician and has got the issue out in the open early enough that it will be forgotten by the general populace (Who, I am convinced, has the attention span and intellectual depth of a goldfish) by the time the next general election comes around. Same as every other promise he's ever broken, or misleading statement he's made which has been shown to be misleading. Of course it may help both their causes that the rabid dogs in Iraq have taken an Aussie hostage. Nothing like a distraction to help hide a disruption. Personally, I think they should just write the poor bugger off. He knew what the risks were going in and was no doubt being amply rewarded for the risks he was taking. Which of course didn't affect his decision to go to Iraq at all - it was all about bringing democracy and freedom to a benighted nation. When we first went to Iraq I thought it was a stupid idea. I still do. It is a week late, but a comparison with the Gallipoli landings is is order; in both cases we were putting the interests of a foreign power above our own. In both cases the available intelligence did not support the decision to go in. In both cases anybody who publicly expressed these opinions was vilified by the hawks of the day. In both cases the hawks of the day were mostly not in the military. And, it seems, in both cases the perpetrator of the fuck-up will go on to be praised as a wartime leader. The US should have invaded Iraq in 1991 A large part of the problems in Iraq, indeed the middle-east in general, are directly related to US and to an increasingly lesser extent British foreign policy. (Does that sentence make sense?) People go on about Islamofascists (because slogans increase your credibility.) and rightly so. None of these people seem to understand the circumstances which gave rise to Islamofascism, though. I do, 'cause I know stuff an' that. Starting from, possibly even preceding, the elevation of minor league warlord and thug Ibn Saud to the leadership of Saudi Arabia in 1923(?) by the combined efforts of the US and British foreign offices and largely funded by the Anglo-American Oil Company; the population of the mid-east has had cause to resent western interference. Saudi Arabia, a country with no natural geological or cultural boundaries and ruled by a family with no hereditary prestige or concept of natural justice, has long been seen as the west's major ally in the region. Come in Spinners. The Iraqi's in particular, were never going to welcome a US invasion, which is why they should have done it years ago, instead of which they gave potential insurgent groups the chance to recruit and train their half-starved cannon fodder for twelve years. Some of these groups are the same ones that the US fostered and urged to rebellion, then let die like dogs in 1991. And they wonder why they weren't tossing rose leaves in front of the tanks. Of course, people like Chrenkoff will point out the one, lonely study which 'shows' that Al Qaeda operatives all come from middle- or upper- class backgrounds, therefore the US policy in the past has been perfect and it is all because of religious fanaticism. No doubt if the same study of was made regarding US or even Australian military 'operatives' a similar sort of demographic would be found, i.e., a predominately middle- and upper- class background. This is because the only time you hear about the cannon fodder is after the cannons have eaten it. The fact that these operatives are known indicates to me that these people are a fair bit further up the food chain than your average suicide bomber. Of course, the right wingers will feign boredom with bringing up old troubles, claiming that everybody is "over it". The sad part is, they're probably right. Most people only maintain an interest in anything as long as the tabloid press (both print and electronic) tells them to. The press only maintains an interest as long as something new and/or scandalous can be found to mine for soundbites or headlines. You can't really imagine A Current Affair leading off with "Day 756 of the Iraq invasion and we still think it is wrong." can you? Of course, victory in Iraq may prove to be something of a poison chalice for the US, although the Christian Fundamentalists who appear to be running the foreign programme these days seem prepared, just like the Islamic fundamentalists, to sacrifice pretty much everybody in order to further their sacred cause. Of course, the right wing also would have you believe that there are no Christian fundamentalist influences on US foreign policy. Those who would deny this are either ignorant or lying. If they are lying then they are, according to their own doctrine, going to burn in hell, baby. In other news, I got the day off. Yay 4 me.
